TobintheGnome:No LAN play, no cross region play, no private chat, no offline play and only 1/3 of the campaign for $60? Once again greed destroys greatness. I'll pass.

I won't debate you on the first three but the last two I'm tired of hearing.

It absolutely has offline play, though you'll be missing out of the features offered by Battle.net. You can still do skirmish and the campaign in offline mode though. Also, this "1/3 of a campaign" stuff is utter nonsense. I just beat the campaign on normal and it took me a good 17 hours to do so; I can beat the first Mass Effect in less time and that game was no slouch. You're paying for a 15-25 hour campaign with substantial replay value and an excellent multiplayer/skirmish gametype that has already given me a dozen hours of enjoyment.

Mazty:So again please stop talking about a game you clearly spend the best part of 15 mins playing.

I don't see that stopping you.

Mazty:-The graphics are so dated we are talking an AGP GPU can run the game. That's not updating your PC every year, that's running a machine from the best part of a decade ago so stop acting as if I'm demanding DX11 with triple SLI.

And what you fail to realize is that the graphics don't need to be state of the art for a game to be good. Blizzard always launched their games with "dated" graphics. It means it's more accessible.

Why that's a problem I don't understand.

Mazty:- Really? Any chance of posting some pics with altered texture quality etc as I find it very hard to believe.

- You were playing the game badly if you think there was no need for a second base. Plus how is a second base intrinsic to good gameplay?- You said DoW didn't have base building. It does, only DoW2 doesn't...- That chart doesn't show the vast differences in the units, plus SC2 has a very similar tech tree. Your comparison doesn't really highlight any vast differences, and even less when you factor in what the buildings do....- You've yet to state where I've gone wrong in my criticisms, whereas you have made utterly incorrect statements about some RTS'. - When I pay $60 for a game, I expect it to be great in everyway, not lacking in certain departments. There is no reason it has to look awful. With graphics settings they could make the game accessible for everyone and yet look state of the art for some e.g. Shattered Horizon- Huh surprising, but why have that level of detail in the cut scenes and then utterly skimp on it in game? Seems a completely redundant feature.

TB_Infidel:Buddy, you haven't actually said WHY you like any of this. What you have done is given opinions.

Which is what SUBJECTIVE means.

A dictionary, get one.

TB_Infidel:Again, look at the picture I linked. Can you really say it is the best looking RTS in the last few years? I think not when the requirements are so low.

Starcraft was designed to be readable first and foremost. Of all the screenshots you posted, SC2 is amongst the ones it's easier to see what the hell is going on (and it's an old screenshot at that).

A sentence, learn to construct one?

Anyway,

Thanks for showing that you will lie to prove yourself to be right.If you had actually played the other games then you would know that those screen shots had been taken due to the free moving camera the plays have control over.Again, why did Blizzard not put this in the game? It would have only made it look better. To keep it out shows how lazy the dev's were.

1. Opinion is mostly what you've been posting as well. You say that (for example) Dawn of War's retribution and morale system is a provably better gameplay mechanic than harvesting minerals and lack of said morale system. It's not provably better, but it may appeal more to your personal preference.

2. While the system may feel "dated," to some, it's polished to a mirror shine, tactical gameplay is omni-present (much more than click spam) and it just...I honestly don't know how to explain it directly other than I just find it appealing. While I enjoy the additions to the RTS formula that Dawn of War brought to the stage, I don't necessarily think those made the genre "better," just "different."

3. I never said it was the best looking RTS in the last few years, I'm simply saying it's not poor. The game is beautiful so far as art style goes, even if the texture detail and lighting isn't as photorealistic as some other RTS games.

4. Colorful and vibrant =/= childish and I'd argue it's somewhat narrow-minded to think so. I like that the game didn't go for the gritty look that Dawn of War and Company of Heroes use, not only because it makes the game stand out from the pack but also because I happen to find it visually attractive. And yes, the pre-rendered cinematics look great, but they always do. The in-engine cutscenes are absolutely gorgeous as well.

More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-No free moving camera-Build speed option

1. More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

2. WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

1. Your preference seems to be that "The game needs to be more tactical to be good." The original Starcraft didn't have it, and Blizzard clearly didn't want to implement it. The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.

2. Asking me to explain, objectively, why an art style looks good is quite literally impossible because everyone's taste in art differs. I like the vibrant colors because it makes the map easy to read and I find the colorful design to be appealing. I can't explain it more plainly than that because it really comes down to opinion. Why you're so hung up on this is beyond me. Does a game need to have photo-realistic graphics to be good?

By the way, I like how you continue to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally handicapped. *thumbs up*

1. More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

2. WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

1. Your preference seems to be that "The game needs to be more tactical to be good." The original Starcraft didn't have it, and Blizzard clearly didn't want to implement it. The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.

2. Asking me to explain, objectively, why an art style looks good is quite literally impossible because everyone's taste in art differs. I like the vibrant colors because it makes the map easy to read and I find the colorful design to be appealing. I can't explain it more plainly than that because it really comes down to opinion. Why you're so hung up on this is beyond me. Does a game need to have photo-realistic graphics to be good?

By the way, I like how you continue to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally handicapped. *thumbs up*

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.

The FMV's are gritty right?The storyline is dark and gritty?The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-No free moving camera-Build speed option

Anything? Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

I'm going to interrupt the flamewar and say that, as someone who thought the first Starcraft was very good (but not mind bogglingly great), and can't stand multiplayer, Starcraft 2 is the best game I've played in a long time.

It has a far better story than any other RTS I can remember. It has graphics that look good whilst being crisp, clear and fast. It has a tremendous amount of 'optional' content in the single player campaign. And skirmishing against the AI is actually fun.

1. More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

2. WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

1. Your preference seems to be that "The game needs to be more tactical to be good." The original Starcraft didn't have it, and Blizzard clearly didn't want to implement it. The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.

2. Asking me to explain, objectively, why an art style looks good is quite literally impossible because everyone's taste in art differs. I like the vibrant colors because it makes the map easy to read and I find the colorful design to be appealing. I can't explain it more plainly than that because it really comes down to opinion. Why you're so hung up on this is beyond me. Does a game need to have photo-realistic graphics to be good?

By the way, I like how you continue to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally handicapped. *thumbs up*

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.

The FMV's are gritty right?The storyline is dark and gritty?The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-No free moving camera-Build speed option

Anything? Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

ok you can find all the problems in a game if you truely want to but if you ask me if you just focous on the bad parts of a game you will NEVER have fun playing them. As to the blizz fan boy shit give it a rest not everyone who liked this game is in blizzs poket. if it was a bad game i wouldnt of bought it and you question the intelligence of my self or others ill have to point out that you sir are by far the biggest idiot ive ever seen:)

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.

The FMV's are gritty right?The storyline is dark and gritty?The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-No free moving camera-Build speed option

Anything? Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

Why are you so hung up on the visuals? Do you need photorealism to be happy?

There is an adjustable speed before you start a match, I'm not sure why they didn't add quick-start, I could care less about a free moving camera, and build speed is intended to be slow.

Honestly, you can dislike the game all you want and I'll respect that but to say Blizzard did a poor job when the game is getting almost universal praise (and is the fastest selling PC RTS of all time) is just ignorant.

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.

The FMV's are gritty right?The storyline is dark and gritty?The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-No free moving camera-Build speed option

Anything? Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

Why are you so hung up on the visuals? Do you need photorealism to be happy?

There is an adjustable speed before you start a match, I'm not sure why they didn't add quick-start, I could care less about a free moving camera, and build speed is intended to be slow.

Honestly, you can dislike the game all you want and I'll respect that but to say Blizzard did a poor job when the game is getting almost universal praise (and is the fastest selling PC RTS of all time) is just ignorant.

dont bother man hes a bigit and as we all know they will die spilling hate for something till they die.

At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why' ergo, you like it because of nostalgia, not because the game is actually any good.Just tell me why:-Harvesting minerals is fun-Slow build speeds is fun-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good-Fixed game speeds are useful-No cover, moral, melee mechanic, and small mirror image maps make the game more tactical?

-Harvesting minerals ISNT fun. What IS fun is being able to drop a zealot or 3 behind the opponent's mineral line, obliterating their workers which completely shuts down their economy which equates to GG.

-Slow build speeds? How is that a flaw? That's like dissing a shooter because you have to reload a gun. Build speed atm is just about right. Slow enough to prevent all out rushing being a foolproof tactic, fast enough to be flexible to counter enemy units.

-Erm. The graphics are really nothing to complain about in my opinion. The only complaint I have is that the Z units all look the same when you've bunched em up and it's a bit harder to micro, but unit type select fixes that to a degree.

-Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly.

-No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else

-No morale : I actually love the morale system in DoW, but its absence in SC2 isn't a huge gaping flaw in my opinion.

-Melee mechanic : You have ranged units, you have melee units. Mix and match and there's no need for a melee mechanic.

-Small mirror maps allow for BALANCE. And Starcraft has a ridiculously mind boggling variation of tactics.

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.

The FMV's are gritty right?The storyline is dark and gritty?The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-No free moving camera-Build speed option

Anything? Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

TB_Infidel, you're basically trolling and ignoring a lot of what people are saying for the sake of making your point heard. You don't seem to want a conversation, you just want people to take your side. Such is the appearance. I looked at your comparison photo of all those games, and Starcraft 2's image looked like it was processed by a 10 year old machine run by a 10 year old kid. The resizing was done badly (as seen by the squished text) and all the graphical settings were set to minimum by the looks of it. Also looks like a stock Beta image of a bland space Multi map that has little to do with the release version.

You're take on Starcraft 2's graphics is opinion at best and completely amateur at worst. If you can't appreciate the style and honest detail and craftsmanship of the graphics in that game, it says more about you than the game. You are the Diablo 3 fan who's p* because Blizzard put a rainbow in your game and think photoshoped in grittiness makes it look better when, in reality, it'd just make the visual experience of the game a cluttered mess.

-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-It's tied to Campaign Difficulty and would be kinda annoying if people could adjust it on the fly in multi. There is that option in the hotkey menu, and Blizzard has said they're thinking of making hotkeys user-mappable in a patch or expansion, but the engine is not ready for it yet. Possibly in the future, tied for other reasons in campaign and multi. There's your answer.

-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-This would only be a convenience for people like you who don't want to start from scratch in Multi and Skirmish. It wouldn't improve the core game in any way shape or form, and would be a detriment to Multi's early stage game play. Unnecessary at best, detrimental in some cases. This is basically just another version of your adjustable game speed complaint.

-No free moving camera-The graphics are designed with a certain view in mind. It's a full 3D game, but the details are presented in such a way as to only really work from the view you're given. This is to give a notable increase to game speed while keeping unit detail and numbers and effects high. It was a design choice, and it doesn't make the game worse. It actually makes it better for everyone who doesn't have a top end machine.

-Build speed option-It's called game design and balance. Also see adjustable game speed (again). This is a pretty blind complaint. Besides, you can use the level editor (and eventually mods) to make this happen anyways.

TobintheGnome:No LAN play, no cross region play, no private chat, no offline play and only 1/3 of the campaign for $60? Once again greed destroys greatness. I'll pass.

No LAN play - sure. No cross region play - Whatever. No Private Chat - You've never played this game. No Offline Play - Now you're a troll of a garden gnome. And only 1/3 of the campaign for $60? - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I am now talking to the 'It's only 1/3rd of the campaign! D:' crowd. That opinion isn't worth the bytes, bandwidth or pixels it's presented in. All it amounts to is 'Whaaaaa, the Lord of the Rings came out in three books. Whhhaaaa, Star Wars came out in 6(or 3) movies. Whhaaaa, the Wheel of Time series is ... 12 books or something by now?'

You know what? You're doing yourself and everyone who buys into your drivel a disservice. Longer isn't better. I would rather read and excellent 360 page novel than 900 pages of prolonged, fluffed up drivel any day. Comparatively, StarCraft 2 Wings of Liberty is that excellent, well edited 360 page installment in the story where Starcraft 1 and Broodwar are the 900 page prolonged blah of a 20 something novelist trying to make the new epic without the experience or tools to really do so.

Overall I enjoyed the campaign. The changes in objectives and circumstances was a bit of a welcome change from some of the missions in the first Starcraft. My biggest gripe in the campaign side would be that regardless of doing all the missions, the ending feels like it just doesn't link back to about half of the missions you did.

I'd probably buy again, but its a closer decision that I would like to think about. This coming from someone who doesn't have the micro to be especially amazing at the multiplayer, hence doesn't play it as much.

I never said it was. I said that it showed DoW had reduced Macro.And if you say DoW has need for secondary bases, fine, I won't argue the point further, but in years of playing the game (granted, at a fairly casual level and against the AI) I never had a reason to do so.

Mazty:- You said DoW didn't have base building. It does, only DoW2 doesn't...

How many times have I explained this point? 3? 4 times? I admit I worded it wrong the first time. For more information on what I meant read my posts.

Mazty:- That chart doesn't show the vast differences in the units, plus SC2 has a very similar tech tree. Your comparison doesn't really highlight any vast differences, and even less when you factor in what the buildings do....

Those tech trees in SupCom consist of similar looking units, with the same names and fulfilling the same roles.

The ones in SC2 consist of different looking units, with different roles.

I'm not saying the ones in SupCom are completely identical, but saying the ones in SC2 are is being in serious denial. A zergling isn't in any way and form the same as a marine.

Mazty:- You've yet to state where I've gone wrong in my criticisms, whereas you have made utterly incorrect statements about some RTS'.

My argument, pretty much from the beggining, was that SC2 is simply a different beast from the ones you praise (most of which, games I also love). You spent the entire time claiming that SC2 was shit and calling "utterly wrong" to statements I made about the other games (granted, several of those were poorly worded), even calling me a liar when I said I played them (which amuses me greatly since you claim I have no ground to discuss those games when you very clearly know less about SC2)

Mazty:- When I pay $60 for a game, I expect it to be great in everyway, not lacking in certain departments.

Then don't pay 60$ for it. No-one is telling you to. And I don't have to convince you, that's Blizzard's marketing department job.

Personally, I had my money worth.

Mazty: There is no reason it has to look awful. With graphics settings they could make the game accessible for everyone and yet look state of the art for some e.g. Shattered Horizon

Shattered Horizon won't run on my laptop, SC2 will. Guess which one I'll be playing on my vacations.

Either way, I'm not going to insist in this anymore. I like the game, regardless of what you, or the reviews say. It's not my job to convince you to like it.

You can recognize that different people have different tastes, or you can keep calling me an idiot. I know which one you probably will do, and frankly I don't care.In the meantime I'll be logging some time playing SC2, and possibly DoW 2 to check the new update.

TB_Infidel, you're basically trolling and ignoring a lot of what people are saying for the sake of making your point heard. You don't seem to want a conversation, you just want people to take your side. Such is the appearance. I looked at your comparison photo of all those games, and Starcraft 2's image looked like it was processed by a 10 year old machine run by a 10 year old kid. The resizing was done badly (as seen by the squished text) and all the graphical settings were set to minimum by the looks of it. Also looks like a stock Beta image of a bland space Multi map that has little to do with the release version.

You're take on Starcraft 2's graphics is opinion at best and completely amateur at worst. If you can't appreciate the style and honest detail and craftsmanship of the graphics in that game, it says more about you than the game. You are the Diablo 3 fan who's p* because Blizzard put a rainbow in your game and think photoshoped in grittiness makes it look better when, in reality, it'd just make the visual experience of the game a cluttered mess.

-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?-It's tied to Campaign Difficulty and would be kinda annoying if people could adjust it on the fly in multi. There is that option in the hotkey menu, and Blizzard has said they're thinking of making hotkeys user-mappable in a patch or expansion, but the engine is not ready for it yet. Possibly in the future, tied for other reasons in campaign and multi. There's your answer.

-Quick start options along with resource rate options?-This would only be a convenience for people like you who don't want to start from scratch in Multi and Skirmish. It wouldn't improve the core game in any way shape or form, and would be a detriment to Multi's early stage game play. Unnecessary at best, detrimental in some cases. This is basically just another version of your adjustable game speed complaint.

-No free moving camera-The graphics are designed with a certain view in mind. It's a full 3D game, but the details are presented in such a way as to only really work from the view you're given. This is to give a notable increase to game speed while keeping unit detail and numbers and effects high. It was a design choice, and it doesn't make the game worse. It actually makes it better for everyone who doesn't have a top end machine.

-Build speed option-It's called game design and balance. Also see adjustable game speed (again). This is a pretty blind complaint. Besides, you can use the level editor (and eventually mods) to make this happen anyways.

Well thanks for answering the questions, but your post reads like Blizzard paid you to write it.Firstly, why does everyone ignore my comments about the animation being so horribly basic? How can people say it is great with such poor animation? Please stop avoiding questions. This is why I have had to repeat myself so many times.The graphics are basic and poor in comparison to modern RTS's, hence the low requirements. End of debate.Again, why does a cartoon style suit a gritty and dark game?? You talked about Diablo - that has nothing to do with the question. The engine not ready to support various speeds? Again, how can this game be 5 stars with such a backwards engine in comparison to the competition? It is not like Blizzard did not have the time or money. The game would be imbalanced or not work well with changing resource rates and speeds. Again, most modern RTS's are not this delicate for a reason and as a result they have a more versatile design. What have Blizzard being doing for all this time and why does this deserve 5 stars? No free moving camera because the detail is kept incredibly simple, again, proof that the graphics engine is very poor and basic. So why did it deserve high scores then games with better visuals? NB. Unit detail, numbers, and effects are very low and basic - again, what game are you comparing these graphics to and what type of PC do you think will be running them?

ok you can find all the problems in a game if you truely want to but if you ask me if you just focous on the bad parts of a game you will NEVER have fun playing them. As to the blizz fan boy shit give it a rest not everyone who liked this game is in blizzs poket. if it was a bad game i wouldnt of bought it and you question the intelligence of my self or others ill have to point out that you sir are by far the biggest idiot ive ever seen:)

All I am trying to show is that this game is far from perfect and it does not deserve the perfect reviews it has been receiving.

-Harvesting minerals ISNT fun. What IS fun is being able to drop a zealot or 3 behind the opponent's mineral line, obliterating their workers which completely shuts down their economy which equates to GG.

-Slow build speeds? How is that a flaw? That's like dissing a shooter because you have to reload a gun. Build speed atm is just about right. Slow enough to prevent all out rushing being a foolproof tactic, fast enough to be flexible to counter enemy units.

-Erm. The graphics are really nothing to complain about in my opinion. The only complaint I have is that the Z units all look the same when you've bunched em up and it's a bit harder to micro, but unit type select fixes that to a degree.

-Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly.

-No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else

-No morale : I actually love the morale system in DoW, but its absence in SC2 isn't a huge gaping flaw in my opinion.

-Melee mechanic : You have ranged units, you have melee units. Mix and match and there's no need for a melee mechanic.

-Small mirror maps allow for BALANCE. And Starcraft has a ridiculously mind boggling variation of tactics.

We're not saying SC2 is superior to every other modern RTS. They're just different. It's like comparing Cod4 to Quake 3/ Live. Sure, they're both shooters but otherwise they're completely different.

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Here lies the problem. You can' actually say why you enjoy the game over the competition out there. When you are unable to communicate across why you enjoy something, it calls into question both yourself and how much fun you are actually having. Not once have you said why the game NEEDS to have bad graphics or exceptionally dated gameplay. You've just said "Well it does", not how this makes the game more enjoyable.

I'll wait out until someone can actually tell me why the game is good other than "It just is".

Mazty:Here lies the problem. You can' actually say why you enjoy the game over the competition out there. When you are unable to communicate across why you enjoy something, it calls into question both yourself and how much fun you are actually having.

And here lies the problem, you expect me to objectively quantify subjective terms. What if I enjoy base building? What if I enjoy Micromanagement? Can you objectively prove I'm not having fun doing those things?

Oh, and I think I made it quite clear countless times that I like the competition. In fact my entire point was that it wasn't worse, not that it was better.

Mazty:Not once have you said why the game NEEDS to have bad graphics or exceptionally dated gameplay. You've just said "Well it does", not how this makes the game more enjoyable.

The Game doesn't NEED to have bad graphics, the game just isn't harmed by them. The game wouldn't be objectively better just by having better graphics.

EDIT: And, oh:

Mazty:I'll wait out until someone can actually tell me why the game is good other than "It just is".

If we assume the gameplay isn't worse than those other games, the reason the game is better is because of a point we haven't discussed: The single player campaign.

The long, well presented, varied single player campaign.Most top RTS usually have 2 out of 3 of those.

Company of heroes has pretty much the same metascore as SC2 and the campaign is half as long, half as varied, and half as well presented as SC2. DoW 2 was long and fairly well presented, but was repetitive. DOW was well presented but very short. SupCom had 15 levels? That's about half of SC2 and I recall they all following the same pattern.

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

Spendrik:It's a game, guys, no need to beat each other down with um, words and opinions.

And you post this on a website that's desperate to get games to be taken seriously.

Just like WoW raiding is serious business? ;)

Opinions are fine and everyone has them. There's really no need to shove exaltations of fun or condemnations of unfun down each other's throats with fervour akin to the religious sort.

As with most things, the 'truth' is somewhere in the middle -- and SC2 *is* a highly-anticipated and polished game.

But I'd admit that the drama here is quite entertaining *eats popcorn*

Fleetingly entertaining because this fervour will probably last till when the next big thing comes along (Diablo 3 drama, anyone?) and all the angst in this thread will be another distant memory in the history of 'serious' gaming.

The drama in this thread, and basically every other thread concerning Starcraft 2 is like candy for my soul. I'll have to admit, I might be a bit of a blizzard fanboy, but basically only because of Diablo and Warcraft (This does NOT delude my impression of their games however, the expansion to Diablo 1 sucked balls and I think they are heading wrong direction with Diablo 3). I've also had a huge interest in the C&C series (excluding C&C3 and C&C4, they suck in my opinion), and quite frankly got caught up in C&C2 and RA1 for a loooong time.

What makes Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 so great for me is the enormous work that the community gets involved in, custom games that is. Starcraft 2 is actually the first one of them that got me interested in ordinary melee games. (I'm not that good at microing usually.) I expect the same out of this game as what I got out of Warcraft 3, atleast 10 years of content! If they can just fix some of the problems with the new Battlenet 2.0, I'll be extatic.

As with the haters in this thread. It seems like you are just arguing about personal flavour in games and such. Personally, I hated the last 2 expansions of DoW1(atleast the singleplayer part of it... the campaign sucked.), and I hated the whole DoW2. I mean... no basebuilding..? Come on... Supreme commander sucks as well. It's basically a bad copy of Total Annihilation. And TA was great back in the day by the way.

Most of your complaints are really awkward as well... The graphics look AMAZING in Starcraft 2 when you pump up the settings to max. The picture you linked of it was some crummy, beta patch, really badly smushed together, low settings of a mess. Try playing the game, or atleast watch a friend do so before complaining about graphics and animations you saw in a beta video/picture 1 and a half years ago.

There are covers and flanking, they just work in a totally other way then in DoW. That being visuals, blindspots, corners and such.

I could go on, but what's the point... It seems like you made up your mind the instance this game was released by Blizzard. You've been getting answers to your questions all of this time, yet you have simply ignored them. 'Waaah, waaaaaaaah... This game isn't my cup of tea! Waaaah...' is all I'm hearing.

And here lies the problem, you expect me to objectively quantify subjective terms. What if I enjoy base building? What if I enjoy Micromanagement? Can you objectively prove I'm not having fun doing those things?

Oh, and I think I made it quite clear countless times that I like the competition. In fact my entire point was that it wasn't worse, not that it was better.

The Game doesn't NEED to have bad graphics, the game just isn't harmed by them. The game wouldn't be objectively better just by having better graphics.

EDIT: And, oh:

If we assume the gameplay isn't worse than those other games, the reason the game is better is because of a point we haven't discussed: The single player campaign.

The long, well presented, varied single player campaign.Most top RTS usually have 2 out of 3 of those.

Company of heroes has pretty much the same metascore as SC2 and the campaign is half as long, half as varied, and half as well presented as SC2. DoW 2 was long and fairly well presented, but was repetitive. DOW was well presented but very short. SupCom had 15 levels? That's about half of SC2 and I recall they all following the same pattern.

None of those campaigns were bad, but SC2 campaign was better.

I expect you to be able to say why you enjoy the game other than saying "Just 'cuz". Basically, why is SC2 more enjoyable than the plethora of more modern RTS' out? How does base building and resource gathering, with generally slower gameplay make the game better than the competition. If you were put in a room with all the RTS' of the last decade, what would make you pick SC2 up over all the others? What are the merits of SC2 that make it stand apart from the others and how are certain elements which are seen as dated work so well they are not a nuisance e.g. Slow as f**k build queues and tedious resource harvesting?

How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps. I'm not doubting the variation in the levels, its the core mechanics which I'm questioning.

I'm seeing a lot of "crying" in this thread. First of, I'm in the "Starcraft 2 is awesome" side.

Second. LAN. I read a lot of posts regarding "the internet can die out", "I want to play my brother/sister/mom/friend/endangered mitological animal #1", thing is, as it's been said, YOU CAN! HUZZAH! You can form parties, you can find them easily, you can get evenly matched in 2v2. So what if your connection dies out? In LAN you can trip over the cable and die out as well. Besides, what proper LAN isn't connected to the internet these days?

Like WC3? Simply, WHAT THE HELL? I played both games, loved WC3 from it's start to it's expansion finish, "back in the day" it's missions were great, SC2 NOW, is still great and almost totally different, Destroying a Convoy, Protecting a Convoy, Infiltration, Resource Races, Achievments, I could go on and on. The only one that can be compared to WC3 or ANY OTHER RTS in the world are the "Defend for X amount of time" missions and even those are perfectly executed and changed according to your play-choices (those who've played through know what I'm talking about).

Multiplayer is the basis of the purchase, I mean it's the follow-up to the most played RTS ever. And you will have fun with it even if you start off losing every single game. But even those who buy it for the single-player have a massive story, re-playability, interesting characters and all in all a great purchase.

Another thing and this one pissed me off sorry about that. The art direction, call me whatever you want but this game "screams" Blizzard from every point. Blizzard has always had their own art style complete with "cartoonish" look and stylized concepts. Best of all, they are Imaginative! Ok aside from the Marine but who hasn't done Powered Armored Marines these days? At least theirs is simple and efficient you know them when you see them. Kerrigan has reasonable breasts by the way. When you buy a Blizzard game you are supposed to be expecting this type of artwork, see the 11million players of WoW, being dated doesn't mean it doesn't work. Diablo 3 is by the same company, has their trade mark grafics and still feels different. The grafical style of SC2 was produced by and engine built by them for them and in my opinion it works, the game is simply beautiful and doesn't have the "realistic" complex I mean since when are Aliens realistic anyway? How do you know what they look like? Of course each is entitled to their own opinion.

"Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure" uhm... fastest selling RTS says otherwise, if you put aside excuses and simply give it a try, it might be hard but you will know you were wrong in missing out. "60 euros/dolars/whatever" here we pay 70€ for a PS3 game and some don't even deserve half that. I payed 90€ for SC2CE my fear was regretting it, guess waht? I don't, money well spent the eternal "did I get an amount of playability equal to the money I spent?" question is simply answered "yes", "and even more" if you enjoyed both the single-multy-challengy-etcy aspects of the game. If you simply don't like Starcraft then I apologize.

After all this text, simply this, do you enjoy RTS's, great story, originality, oh yeah AND FUN? Buy it and prepare yourself for enduring the hard waiting period from now to Heart of the Swarm.

You don't? Don't buy it but there is no need to rain on our happy merry Parade of SC2 Goodness. Besides we waited for the game and got rewarded for it for what I've seen. All that's missing is an Escapist B.Net user name share so we can "Escapisize" our Friends Lists on B.Net. At least I haven't seen the thread yet.